White House Motor Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1971

187 N.L.R.B. 1006 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
70 Houston Corporation , d/b/a White House Motor
Inn and Service Employees International Union,
Local # 579, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-8258
January 21, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On August 28, 1970, Trial Examiner Benjamin A.
Theeman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Tnal Exam-
iner also found that Respondent had not engaged in a
certain other unfair labor practice.' Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, 70 Houston Corporation, d/b/a White
House Motor Inn, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.3
I In the absence of an exception to the Trial Examiner 's failure to find
this unfair labor practice, we adopt pro forma his conclusion
2 Respondent excepts in essence to certain of the Trial Examiner's
credibility resolutions It is the Board's established policy, however, not to
overrule a Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions unless, as is not the case
here, the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188
F 2d 362 (C A 3)
i In footnote 19 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for
"10" days
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN A THEEMAN, Trial Examiner: The complaint,'
as amended at the hearing, alleges that White House Motor
Inn (Respondent or Motel) by (a) creating an impression of
surveillance of its employees' union activities, (b) threaten-
ing discharge, (c) threatening that it would be futile to have
a union, and (d) unlawfully discharging employees Sarah
Bailey, Salley Calhoun, Willie Mae Williams, Jessie
Ellington, and Sarah Amey has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (the Act). Respondent
in its answer denies the unfair labor practices, admits the
discharges, but alleges that the five employees were
discharged forjust cause.
A hearing was held after due notice before me, the duly
designated Trial Examiner, on June 25, 1970, in Atlanta,
Georgia. All parties appeared and were represented by
counsel. They were given full opportunity to participate,
adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and argue orally. Respondent submitted a brief which has
been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Georgia corporation engaged in the
operation of a motor motel in Atlanta . During 1969, which
year is a representative period of its operations , Respondent
received gross revenues in excess of $500 ,000 from motel
lodging and services provided to guests , of which amount
more than 25 percent was received from guests who stayed
less than 1 month . During the same period of time in the
course and conduct of its business , Respondent received
goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly from suppliers
located outside Georgia . It is found that Respondent is and
has been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE UNION
Service Employees International Union , Local #579,
AFL-CIO (the Union), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
i Based on a charge filed March 25, 1970, by Service Employees
International Union, Local #579, AFL-CIO
187 NLRB No. 137
WHITE HOUSE MOTOR INN 1007
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
The issues are sufficiently set forth in the Statement of
the Case above
B. Background
The Motel operates in Atlanta, Georgia, with a staff of
from 100 to 120 employees. Included is the housekeeping
department with about 25 to 30 employees, of whom
approximately 20 are housemaids. The five dischargees
were employed by the Motel as housemaids. The maids
work 6 days a week from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Each maid is
assigned a quota of 14 rooms per day which are usually
located in one section of a floor. An exception was Mrs.
Bailey who was assigned the lobby, the mezzanine, and six
rooms. There are days when the section contains less than
14 rooms In that case, the maid may be assigned rooms in
another section to make up the quota of 14. In addition, the
maids at their option are "sold" extra rooms over the quota
of 14 to work on for extra pay.
Generally, for the past several years there has been a
shortage of maids at the Motel. Also the Motel has found it
difficult to keep maids for any length of time. The turnover
among maids has been very high, between 20 to 25 percent.
Some of the maids quit without notice, somejust disappear,
and others are discharged. To make up for the shortage and
during the Motel's busy season, the maids have been asked
to work overtime when needed. There have been periods
when a maid may work overtime two or three times a week.
Also, the maids have been asked to forego their day off
every second week. In the latter instance, the maid would
work 13 days in a row
C. The Union Campaign
Starting about December 3, 1969, the Union started a
campaign to organize the service employees of Respondent.
During that month employees Bailey, Calhoun, Williams,
Ellingion, and Amey all signed union cards. For an
unspecified period afterward Mrs. Bailey, Mrs. Calhoun,
and Mrs Williams spoke to the other maids at the Motel to
get them to sign up. On March 5, 12, and 19 union meetings
were held in the local YMCA, attended by six of
Respondent's employees. Mrs. Bailey attended all three
meetings. Mrs. Amey and Mrs Ellington attended the
meetings on the 5th and 19th. Mrs. Williams attended the
meetings on the 12th and 19th. Mrs. Calhoun attended the
meeting on the 19th.2 On March 24, 1970, Mrs. Bostick,
executive housekeeper of the Motel, discharged the five
employees above listed.
D. Credibility of Witnesses
The findings of facts and conclusions in this Decision
1 The record lists Roberta Hunter as the sixth employee who attended
the meetings
d Among other duties, the inspectress inspects the work of the maids,
criticizes its quality, and has the right to make them redo their work An
inspectress is next in line for promotion to housekeeper
4 Bailey's testimony was "Well, she criticized me a time or two but I Just
had to work and didn't pay it no attention " and "Well, I have been late a
result from the resolution of the credibility of witnesses.
The testimony of each of the five dischargees is in conflict
with that of Mrs. Bostick. In the resolution of such
conflicts, the testimony of the dischargees has been credited
and that of Mrs. Bostick not credited unless otherwise
indicated. In this resolution, the testimony of all witnesses
has been considered as well as their demeanor. In addition,
inconsistencies and conflicting evidence were considered.
The absence of a statement of resolution of a conflict in
specific testimony or of an analysis of such testimony does
not mean that such did not occur. See Bishop and Malco,
Inc., d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. Further, to the
extent that a witness is credited only in part, it is done upon
the evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe
some and not all of a witness' testimony." N.L.R.B. v.
Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2).
E. Carrey Louise Bostick, Executive Housekeeper
As stated above , Mrs. Carrey Louise Bostick was the
executive housekeeper at the Motel who discharged the five
named employees . She had been employed by the Motel
since January 1969, when she started as a maid On
September 1, 1969, she was promoted to inspectress.3 On
March 3 , 1970, Mrs. Bostick became executive housekeep-
er. As housekeeper , she had charge of and managed the
housekeeping department . She had the right to hire and
fire She kept the time records of the employees and had the
right to require the maids to work overtime and to assign or
"sell" them extra rooms.
F. Sarah Bailey
1. Employment record
Mrs. Sarah Bailey started working for the Motel on
October 1, 1968, and worked there continuously until her
discharge March 24, 1970. Previously she had worked as a
night maid in one of the Atlanta banks. Her assignment was
to clean the lobby, the mezzanine, and six rooms on the first
floor. Frequently, there were weeks when she worked two
or three nights' overtime because the Motel was "full." This
was done at the request of the housekeeper then in charge.
On occasion she worked the seventh day of the 6-day
workweek. At no time was she absent from work. There
were other times when the Motel was short of help. When
requested Mrs. Bailey came in to work on her days off.
For the period of time Mrs. Bailey was employed, she
worked under a succession of six housekeepers, including
Mrs. Bostick. None of the housekeepers previous to Mrs.
Bostick complained about or cnticized her work. After Mrs.
Bostick became inspectress and housekeeper, she criticized
Mrs. Bailey's work once or twice about being slow and
spoke to her about being tardy on the job. The criticism was
not severe.4 Nor did Mrs. Bostick mention discharge.
couple of mornings She had said. 'You're late Sarah, you're late Get
around here and let's get through' " Bostick testified Sarah was entirely
too slow and I had asked her to come in at 7 o'clock which she could not
get there At 8 o'clock when she came in usually most of the people are in
the office and it's very hard to clean an office with everyone in there at this
time and if she wouldn't do that she would be standing around in the linen
room I had asked her. I said, Sarah, have you gotten all the work done
(Continued)
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Union activity
In December 1969 Mrs. Bailey participated in the union
campaign. She signed a union card and spoke to other
employees to get them to join the Union. She attended all
three meetings held in March.
3. Mrs. Bostick threatens Mrs. Bailey because of
union activity
Mrs. Bostick drove to and from work. Mrs. Bailey took
the bus. There were evenings when Mrs. Bostick would give
Mrs. Bailey a lift part of the way home. On March 13 this
occurred. Mrs. Bostick told Mrs. Bailey that she knew who
was at the union meeting because one of the employees had
called her and told her. The same employee had told her
"about everything that had happened." Mrs Bailey told her
that she had attended the meeting and was not going to
deny it. Mrs Bailey and Mrs. Bostick had another
conversation on March 20, at the Motel. Mrs. Bostick told
Mrs. Bailey the same employee had told her what had gone
on at the meeting the day before. Further Mrs. Bostick told
Mrs. Bailey that she had been told to "pull everybody's
card" that had attended the union meeting and "they would
be fired."
Mrs. Bailey is credited as to these two conversations.
Mrs. Bostick did not deny that they occurred nor that Mrs.
Bailey told her she attended the meeting. Mrs. Bostick's
response "No" to Counsel's question "I would like to ask
you if you at any time ever said to Mrs. Bailey that you
knew who all had attended a union meeting and what all
was going on?" is not considered a denial of the two
conversations set out in the text.
Respondent in its brief under a section called "THE
ALLEGED THREATS TO DISCHARGE" treats with
these conversations. Respondent first sets out a paragraph
citing Mrs. Bailey's testimony with regard to "pulling
everybody's card." This is followed by another paragraph
citing Mrs. Williams' testimony5 about Mrs. Bostick having
her card pulled and reporting the union people to the "head
man" and Mrs. Bostick "would get them away from there."
The next paragraph contains only a statement that Mrs.
Bostick "however, testified that she had never made such a
similar statement as alleged by Mrs. Calhoun."6 Absent
any indication of Respondent's purpose, the Trial Examin-
er concludes that Respondent by placing these three
paragraphs one after another wishes the Examiner to find
that the denial by Mrs. Bostick of Mrs. Calhoun's statement
is a denial of the Bailey and Williams statements. The
Examiner does not so find. Neither the record nor
Respondent has pointed out the connection between the
statements made by Mrs. Bostick to Mrs. Bailey and Mrs.
Williams and that made to Mrs. Calhoun. Each statement
was made at a different time under different circumstances.
Accordingly, from the foregoing and on the record as a
whole, it is concluded that Mrs Bostick's (1) March 13
and well then she would dust shrug her shoulders, no, and I would say let's
go and get this work done I had criticized her several times for this She
dust wouldn't do it " Bostick continued her testimony that she would "ask
[Bailey] had she completed her work and she would say no and then it
would be around 4 or 5 o'clock before she would even get to the guest
rooms I said you dust do your work a little faster and see if we can get
statement gave the impression that the Motel was keeping
the employees' union activities under surveillance, and (2)
March 20 statement was a threat to discharge the
employees for participating in union activities. Each
statement was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Mrs. Bostick discharges Mrs. Bailey
Mrs. Bailey's version of her discharge, somewhat
condensed, follows: On March 24, about 1 p.m. Mrs.
Ellington came to Mrs. Bailey who was working on the first
floor. She told her "don't you know you are fired.... Drop
everything . . . and let's get dressed because you are fired."
Believing what Mrs. Ellington said, Mrs. Bailey got dressed
and waited in the linen room until 4 o'clock.? At that time
Mrs. Bostick handed her her check and told her to leave the
Motel because "y'all cannot wait on the inside."
G. Salley Calhoun
1. Employment record
Mrs. Salley Calhoun was employed by the Motel on
two occasions. The first time was for about 1 year
commencing in 1967. She quit of her own accord. She was
rehired in October or November 1969 and worked
continuously thereafter till her discharge March 24, 1970.
She cleaned 14 rooms a day as assigned. The work was to
make beds, clean the bathroom, vacuum, and dust.
Mrs. Calhoun worked under other housekeepers as well
as Mrs. Bostick. Mrs. Calhoun testified she was never
criticized for her work, never asked to redo her work, and
always called in when she was unable to come to work.
2. Union activity and Mrs. Bostick's threats
Mrs. Calhoun signed a union card on December 3,
1969. She tried to get four or five other maids to sign up.
Being unsuccessful she gave up. She attended a union
meeting on March 19. On March 23, she was in the linen
room with Mrs. Bostick and another maid Roberta Hunter.
The following conversation occurred:
A. Well, she asked Roberta Hunter, "Did you go to
the union meeting?" And Roberta said yes, that she had
went and she said, "What about you, Salley? Did you
go?" And I said, "Yes, I went." And she stated and said,
"A couple of y'all will have to go." And then Roberta
said, Who are you going to let go? And she said, well, it
was going to be some that attended the union meetings
that she was going to let go and others she was going to
keep and then when Roberta asked her who she was
going to let go she said that that was all right because
she had the names written down and that Mr. Carre'
was going to pull a couple of our cards . . . and Mr.
Cane' wasn't worried about the union coming in
because he was going to fight . . . can be as smart as
you can That's what she told me.
it, because you can't get in at 7 and we are rushing to try to get the offices
done and sometime it would be 8 30 and sometimes 9 when she would
come in there And this is just entirely too late to start in the offices "
5 See sec H, 2, below
' See sec G, 2, below
7 See sec 1, 2, below
WHITE HOUSE MOTOR INN 1009
A. After that we went back down to our floor and
13
A. She said where did the union man pick us up at.
... and I said he is picking us up on the street, and
she said this is on the premises . . . and I said well, he
picked us up on the street. She said, okay.
As will be shown later, Mrs. Bostick denied that she ever
said to Mrs. Calhoun "in the presence of Roberta Hunter
that as a result of their attending a union meeting some
would have to be let go and some would be allowed to
stay." It is noted that Mrs. Bostick does not deny that she
held a conversation with Mrs. Calhoun nor does she deny
that she asked Mrs. Calhoun and Mrs. Hunter if they
attended the union meeting. As with Mrs. Bailey, Mrs.
Calhoun is credited and Mrs. Bostick is not credited.
Accordingly, from the record as a whole, it is concluded
that Mrs. Bostick's statement on March 23 to Mrs. Calhoun
and Mrs. Hunter constituted unlawful interrogation of
employees about their union activities and a threat to
discharge them for such activities in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Union activities and Mrs. Bostick's threats
On December 4, 1969, Mrs. Williams signed a union card.
She told other maids what she had done and told them to
sign cards because "it would help them out." She attended
the union meetings on March 12 and 19.
Mrs. Williams testified that on the morning of March
19, Mrs. Bostick came to her on the floor where she was
working and the following conversation took place:
A. Well, she came up to me and told me if I go to
the union meetings she would have my card pulled...
A. She reported-told me that she was going to
have it reported to the head man.
Q. Did she ask you any questions?
A. Yes. She asked me if I had signed a card. I told
her I did not know anything about it.
Q. She ask you anything else?
A. She asked me who all signed a union card and I
told her I did not know.
Mrs. Williams' undenied version of this conversation is
credited.8 Accordingly, as in the instance of Mrs. Bailey, it
is found on the record as a whole that Mrs. Bostick's
interrogation of and threats to Mrs. Williams because of
her union activities , as set out above , are violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Mrs. Bostick discharges Mrs. Calhoun
Mis. Calhoun's version of the discharge, in condensed
form, follows: Mrs. Calhoun reported to work at the usual
time and finished her 14 rooms; 13 on her own station and
one on another station. After getting dressed she looked for
Ellington and Amey. She found them sitting in the linen
room with Mrs. Bostick. Mr. Sims (timekeeper) was also
there. He told Mrs. Calhoun that Mrs. Bostick had "pulled
a lot of cards and she's probably pulled yours too." Mrs
Calhoun checked to see whether her card was gone. She
went back to Mrs. Bostick who gave her her check saying,
"See if the amount is right" and then how sorry she was.
H. Willie Mae Williams
I Employment record
Mrs. Willie Mae Williams was employed at the Motel
for 1 year when she was discharged on March 24, 1969. She
worked for several supervisors prior to Mrs. Bostick.
During that year she was asked to "redo" a room once.
When asked she worked overtime and also worked on her
day off. At no time did she refuse to work. In the past she
had been complimented on her work. On March 23, Mrs.
Bostick told her she "did good work."
8 See sec F. 3, supra, third paragraph
9 Sarah Amey is the fifth dischargee The testimony shows that
Ellington and Amey were "inseparable " Generally what one did the other
did also Unless otherwise indicated , the findings on Mrs Ellington are
applit able to Mrs Amey They came from the Sheraton-Biltmore together
and at the Motel thereafter frequently worked side by side They came to
3. Mrs. Bostick discharges Mrs. Williams
Mrs. Williams' version of her discharge is in essence as
testified to by Mrs. Ellington. See section I, below.
I. Jessie Ellington and Sarah Amey
1. Employment record
Mrs. Jessie Ellington started working for the Motel in
November 1969. Mrs. Sarah Amey came over at the same
time.9 Both worked continuously until their discharges on
March 24, 1970. Previously, she had been employed at the
Sheraton-Biltmore Hotel in Atlanta for about 1 year. There
her supervisor was Mrs. Burkhalter. When the latter
became housekeeper at the Motel she called Mrs. Ellington,
who shifted and went to work at the Motel. Mrs. Ellington
has worked for six housekeepers at the Motel since Mrs.
Burkhalter, including Mrs. Bostick. All the housekeepers
complimented Mrs. Ellington on her work. Mrs. Bostick
told her she "had the cleanest floor ." 10 Though Mrs.
Ellington never worked overtime, she did work on her day
off when asked. As stated before, this would mean that she
worked a stretch of 13 days before getting a day off. There
were many days when she did extra rooms over and above
her 14 assigned rooms for extra pay, especially when the
work together and left together It was common practice for the one to help
the other in completing their daily stints , depending on which one finished
first All the housekeepers were aware of their actions They joined the
Union together and were discharged together
19 The last compliment she received from Mrs Bostick was I week
before the discharge day
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Motel was full and help was short. At no time was she
criticized, or did she come in late.
2. Union activity and conversation with Mrs.
Bostick
Mrs. Ellington joined the Union on December 3 when
she signed a card. She did not assist in organizing the Union
but did attend the union meetings on March 5 and 19. On
or about February 19, Mrs. Ellington and Mrs. Amey were
working in one room together. Mrs. Bostick came and
spoke to them. Mrs. Bostick said "the Union wasn't any
good, that they would only give you a nickel raise and you
would have to pay $15 a month fees, so by that you know its
not any good." Mrs. Amey testified that during this
conversation Mrs. Bostick also "told us she didn't care
whether we had a union come in or not.. . .
The General Counsel contends this conversation is
violative of the Act. This contention is error. It is clear that
Mrs. Bostick referred to the Union in a depreciatory
manner. But the conversation contains no threat or
coercive aspect. Under these circumstances, the conversa-
tion is within the protection afforded by Section 8(c) of the
Act.
3. Mrs. Bostick discharges Mrs. Ellington and
Mrs. Amey
Mrs. Ellington's credited version of the discharge on
March 24 follows-
A. We were loading our carts for work. There was
one employee there, Sarah Bailey, came up on the
second floor where I was working and said and told us
that Mrs. Bostick was short of girls and asked us if we
would buy any extra rooms and would we do so and I
bought two extra rooms
Q. What time was this?
A. It was about 8:30?
A.... because she didn't have any girls, and later on
that afternoon around 2, a little after 2, Mr. Sims, the
timekeeper . . told Sarah Amey and myself . . . that
Carrey Bostick had come out there and .. had pulled
five cards....
Q. Excuse me. Let me interrupt. Did he mention
whose cards had been pulled?
A. Yes. He said she had Sarah Bailey, Jessie
Ellington, Willie Mae Williams, and 4e thought she had
Salley Calhoun but he wasn't for sure, he said he
thought it was
Q. How did you get together with Bailey and
Williams?
A. I went up there first after Mr. Sims told us. Sarah
Amey and myself went up to Willie Mae Williams who
was up on the 6th floor working and we went down to
Sarah Bailey who was on the 1st floor. I told Sarah
Bailey that Mr. Sims said that Carrey had came out
there and pulled her time card. ti
Q. Why did you tell Sarah Bailey and Willie Mae
Williams?
A Well, because-the reason why I told them was
because she did not know and I figured that, you
know-
Q. Did anybody tell you to tell her?
A. No, they didn't
Q. Go ahead.
A. I just told her 'cause I wanted her to know what
had happened to her.
Q. And so what did you all do?
A. We went down to the housekeeping department
and Carrey Bostick told us, "Your check will be ready."
No, while we was waiting-
A. We wasn't for sure it was Salley's name. Mr.
Sims said he wasn't for sure.
Q. Did you go talk with her after you spoke with
Mr. Sims?
A. No, I didn't, and Salley came down to get some
linen for her cart to prepare for the next morning. Salley
wanted to know why we were sitting there and we told
her that Carrey had pulled our cards and we told her
that Mr. Sims thought she had hers. Salley went out
there and asked Mr. Clark was her card in the rack.
Q. Mr. who?
A. Mr. Clark, the evening timekeeper. Mr. Clark
told her no, that it wasn't there and Salley came back
where we were. Mrs. Bostick told us, "Your check will
be ready in a minute." And she went around the office
and she picked the checks up. That was about-it was
about 3.30 or something to 4 and she gave us our money
and she didn't tell us anything so we didn't ask. She ask
us would we please wait on the outside, we couldn't wait
on the inside.
J. Mrs Bostick's Version of the Discharges
1. Sarah Bailey
Mrs. Bostick testified that she discharged Mrs. Bailey
because (a) she was entirely too slow, (b) she would come in
at 8 a.m. though she was asked to come at 7 a.m., (c) she
would "just shrug her shoulders, no," when Mrs. Bostick
asked her "have you gotten all your work done," and (d)
she would take from 9 to 10 hours to do 8 hours' work even
with assistance from Mrs. Bostick who got there at 7 a.m.
and started cleaning the offices and the lobby.
Mrs. Bostick testified that Mrs. Bailey did not like to
work Sundays because she had to go to church and further
that she refused to come to work on Sundays because her
husband didn't want her to work weekends. In this respect
Mrs. Bostick's testimony was equivocal. She stated in one
instance, "I said well we all like to go to church ... when
you taken the job you know we had to work Saturdays and
Sundays . . . well go ahead and take it off then. You can't
On cross-examination Mrs Ellington amplified this statement
Q Then did the three of you go from the 6th floor to the Ist floor
to discuss the situation with Mrs Bailey9
A Just one, myself
WHITE HOUSE MOTOR INN
make a person do something that he or she don't want to
do." Later, she testified that Mrs. Bailey "constantly
refused [to work weekends] whenever she was scheduled"
but that she had never given her permission to take the
weekend off. Also, Mrs. Bostick stated that she discharged
Mrs. Bailey "for her work" not because of her refusal to
come in on weekends. Then Mrs. Bostick stated that Mrs.
Bailey's refusal to come in on weekends was part of the
reason for the discharge "[b]ecause we needed her on
Saturdays and Sundays when the house was full."
Mrs. Bostick testified that for "quite some time . .. six
months" Mrs. Bailey had come in between 8 and 8:30 a.m.
though requested to come in at 7 a.m.; that the Motel had
tolerated this condition for at least 6 months because she
was an older maid; and that the situation had not changed
on March 24 but Mrs. Bailey's disposition had gotten
worse. However, Mrs. Bostick did not fire her because of
the worsening disposition. What happened according to
Mrs. Bostick, was "I was filled up and I just pulled her
card."
2. Salley Calhoun
Mrs. Bostick testified that she discharged Mrs. Calhoun
because (a) her work was not up to par, (b) she would go
from floor to floor and create disturbance at this particular
time , and (c) she would get the other four and then they
would get the rest of the maids together and if things didn't
go the way these five wanted it to go, they would say, "we
are not going to do it." She also testified that she "warned
[Calhoun ] several times about her work . . . even asked her
to go back and clean mirrors and clean the balconies."
Further, Mrs. Bostick stated that Mrs. Calhoun did not
always call in and report when she was sick or absent.
Mrs. Bostick stated that the work of the five including
Mrs. Calhoun's was not as bad prior to the time she became
housekeeper. It was about a week after she became
housekeeper that Mrs. Calhoun's work started to fall off
and she began to create disturbances. On that day she
asked Mrs. Calhoun to stay on her floor. Mrs. Calhoun said
she would, but as soon as Mrs. Bostick left she did "it"
again . The same thing occurred the next day. Then nothing
occurred for the remainder of that week, except that Mrs.
Bostick stated it stopped for "as long as you're looking at
them."' Mrs. Bostick did not fire Mrs. Calhoun after the
second day's disturbance, "Because we were short of help at
this particular time, really." In addition to the three times
mentioned above, Mrs. Calhoun created disturbances four
more times , the last on the day of the discharge, March 24.
Mrs. Bostick testified she waited until the 24th, because
"they had not completed their work and we were short, the
guests were complaining about their rooms and from one
thing or another had just filled me up.. . . All five of them
because they were congregating in the linen room.. . ." All
five of the dischargees refused to take rooms "all the time."
3. Willie Mae Williams
Mrs. Bostick testified she discharged Mrs. Williams for
11 The word in the transcript appears as "inacceptable." The transcript
is corrected accordingly
11 This last statement may have referred only to March 1970 Though
1011
(a) disorderly conduct and (b) drinking on the job. Mrs.
Bostick stated that previously, she had asked Williams not
to drink on the job. Though, Mrs. Bostick never saw
Williams drinking she testified that she knew Mrs. Williams
was under the influence of whiskey three times. The first
two times she spoke to Mrs. Williams about it but did not
threaten to fire her even though she considered drinking on
the job a very serious offense and deserving of discharge.
The last offense occurred again the Saturday before March
24. Mrs. Bostick was off that Saturday. When she returned
to work on Monday, she was given a report of Mrs.
Williams' conduct. Mrs. Williams reported for work that
Monday. Mrs. Bostick said nothing to her and permitted
her to work because "we were short of help." She also
permitted her to work on Tuesday March 24 but then
decided to discharge her that day even though she "was still
short of help."
4. Ellington and Amey
Mrs. Bostick testified she discharged Mrs. Ellington
and Mrs. Amey because they were inseparable.12 "They
wanted to work together . . . the maids have different
sections and the guest would be calling for their room and
they wouldn't do them unless they do them together and I
just couldn't do it. This is too much." Mrs. Bostick
discussed this matter with the two, they would separate and
then be back together again . Mrs. Bostick stated that they
worked as a team after March 1970, although they had both
always worked different sections on the second floor
previously. She tried to split them up but they would get
together again . When that happened she did not fire them
because she was "trying to give them a chance really . .
because they were there longer than I was I didn't want
them to say that I came in and just fired them right then.
You try to give a person a chance before you fire them I
would suppose." However, she fired them on March 24
without speaking to them at all because "the house had not
been completed, the guests were calling and I went upstairs
to find out . . . they were not doing them . . . I came back
downstairs and I pulled the cards because I was not going
to take it any longer."
Mrs. Bostick testified that Mrs. Ellington and Mrs.
Amey would not work on different floors. It was pointed
out to Mrs. Bostick that she might have been able to keep
two good employees by putting them on different floors.
She answered, "you don't separate" the two. She did not
ask them to work separate floors because she knew them
well enough. Her statement was that they would have quit
first and this was not a guess , that both had previously
talked of quitting but not because they were separated.
Mrs. Bostick testified that Mrs. Ellington and Mrs.
Amey never worked overtime. With regard to weekend
work starting with January 1970 Mrs. Ellington and Mrs.
Amey "particularly wanted to work like they wanted to
work" and refused weekend work accordingly. On another
occasion she testified that they never refused to take their
turns on weekends.13 She also testified that Mrs. Ellington
and Mrs. Amey particularly "didn't want to work on one
on cross-examination the month of March was included in the period of
refusal
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
weekend and they would get with the rest of them and try to
change it around and it became more than I could bear
really." That "with all of it building up together," the
weekend refusals constituted one of the reasons why she
finally let them go.
5. The discharge of the five employees as a
group
Mrs. Bostick testified that the conduct of the five
dischargees as a group caused her to discharge them as a
group on March 24. On March 24 the Motel was busy and
there was a shortage of maids. Instead of the normal
complement of 20 to 21 maids, the Motel had about 17
There follows a resume of the different sections of Bostick's
testimony dealing with this aspect of the discharge.
On March 24 Mrs. Calhoun got together with the other
four dischargees. If things didn't go the way these five
wanted it to go they would say, "we are not going to do it.
We won't take rooms." Then they got all the maids, the
maids in a body to refuse to take rooms. In further
amplification of the above, Mrs. Bostick testified:
A. When they would go from floor to floor they
would get together and go into the linen closets and
they would have their discussions about what they were
not going to do or what they were going to do and then
they would go get the other maids and then they would
all come downstairs and say what they were going to do
and what they weren't going to do.14
Again Mrs. Bostick testified as follows:
A. . . . You're supposed to come in at 8 o'clock and
be ready to go out at 4:30. And they rejected this and
dust would not do the work I had assigned to them and
they just rebelled against doing it and at this particular
time that I let all five of them go, the house was
somewhat full and the guest kept calling for their rooms
and I had to call up and ask them would they make the
rooms and they just wouldn't do it and I pulled their
cards that day. This is what happened.
In March 1970 Mrs. Bostick testified that the five
dischargees in a group,
refused to accept orders or if I would send, I can't be
everywhere and I would send and they would not
accept them. They would not accept work orders that I
would send to them from their inspectress or anyone at
the time and I would go up and try to explain-you
would have to just almost beg them to do or to take
extra rooms or something. Now no one there is made
actually to take over his portion of rooms, but if we
would be short on help and would ask if they would
help out then they would never want to do this at this
particular time or they would say we are notjust going
to do it or we are going to do our share and well you
don't have your share, you don't have 14 rooms, well
we're not going to do anymore. So this is it.
14 The testimony is general in nature and as given suggests that the
occurence referred to, if it occurred, did not occur on March 24
i5 This question and answer highlights some of the inconsistencies in
Mrs Bostick's testimony
i6 Bostick's account of a complaint by one of the previous housekeepers
was vague The precise nature or time of complaint is not clear No
indication of a complaint from the housekeeper to management appears
Under cross-examination Mrs. Bostick told the following
story:
A. I did it this date because they had not completed
their work and we were short, the guest were
complaining about their rooms and from one thing to
another hadjust filled me up at this date.
Q. All five of them?
A. All five of them because they were congregating
in the linen room. They would come from the 6th floor,
pick up the 3rd floor and go to the 2nd floor.
Q. Did you ask them what they were doing?
A. No, I didn't, I didn't ask them.
n # k f
Q. You stated also among the reasons for discharg-
ing Salley Calhoun was they would refuse to take rooms
and do work?
A. This is true.
Q. You also said right after that that all of the
maids would refuse to do this?
A. All maids?
Q. That's what your testimony was, all the maids
would refuse to do this at times. I'm not saying all of the
time, but at times?
A. Well, yes, when you have overworked one maid
then they think the others should do it. You, I, or
anyone, if you take 20 rooms or 21 rooms and the others
don't do it, you would refuse, so would I.
Q. Probably so, but you said all of your maids at
one time or another like these five refused to take
rooms?
A. Not all the time, sir, no.
Q. These people did it all of the time?
A. All of the time.15
6. Discussion of Mrs. Bostick's version of the
discharge
For the time that the five employees were with the Motel,
they were aware of the line of succession in becoming a
housekeeper. None complained of the fact that Mrs.
Bostick became either inspectress or housekeeper. During
that time but prior to March 1970 the work of the five gave
rise to no complaint from any of the previous housekeepers
or inspectresses, including Mrs. Bostick when she was an
inspectress.16 Though the five maids were employees
holding the records of largest employment, great reliability,
and good efficiency, Mrs. Bostick never warned any of the
five that she was going to discharge them though she had
asked one or two to do their work better. On March 24,
without saying anything to them regarding cause, she did
discharge them. The vagueness of the reason for the
discharge of five maids of this calibre casts serious doubt
about the stated cause of discharge.
As is evident from the portions of the quoted sections of
She stated the housekeeper before her had asked her that "the very next
time you are off you take them five with you And I said why me take
them with me, because they didn't even carry out her orders and I said
they give me the same trouble they give you " In explanation of the above
Mrs Bostick continued, "Take them with me That means on my day off
Maybe I should have stated it this way, sir"
WHITE HOUSE MOTOR INN
Mrs. Bostick 's testimony no clear picture is drawn of the
misbehavior of the five employees on March 24. General
statements are made that fuse March 24 with alleged
occurrences of previous times. No specific disturbance
created by any of the five is specified. The story told by
Mrs. Bostick is inconsistent and contains many contradic-
tions.
On cross-examination Mrs. Bostick testified without
referring to time or cause that "we suggested discharging
them before [March 24] but being short of help they just
didn ' t do it ." She then continues again vaguely that though
short of help "[a ]t this particular time [March 24] I would
not have discharged them either if I hadn 't gone up and so
much of the work had not been done at this previous time
and constantly thinking back."
Another reason given for discharge was the refusal to
take extra rooms. No maid was required to take extra
rooms. Mrs. Bostick's story vacillated on this point as
follows
Q. You testified that one of the things was they
refused to accept orders, they wouldn't except work
orders?
A
Q.
fi-ve9
A.
Q.
That's true.
Is that one of the reasons you discharged all
Yes.
Yet you then said no one was required to take
extra rooms?
A. No one is required to take over his quota, but
you must take 14 rooms, everybody is scheduled for 14
rooms.
Q. I agree, but you said extra rooms specifically to
Mr Hall, you said they wouldn't take extra rooms and
that you fired them because they would not take extra
rooms?
A. I made a mistake there.
Q. You didn't fire them because they refused to
take extra rooms; did you?
A. I fired them because they would not take their
quota... .
THE WITNESS: Every room, if you come in on your
section you may not have 14 rooms, then you are
supposed to take rooms wherever we schedule you to
make up your 14 rooms. This is what they would call
extra rooms. When I speak of over their quota I would
say we would sell you rooms you see which means that
you would have 14 rooms to make up your station and
then the extra rooms which I stated was wrong, I should
have said was selling rooms, nobody is compelled to
buy any rooms at anytime.
Q. I understand the difference. Then was it your
testimony or is it your testimony now that these five
rel used to even to accept their own 14 rooms?
A. 14 rooms. This is what I am saying. If they didn't
have them on their station. This is what I meant.
Q. How often did this happen?
A. Well whenever-it could happen twice a week It
may happen three times a week.
Q. So an average of two or three times a week they
would refuse to take even their normal quota?
A. They would refuse.
1013
Q. For how long had they been refusing, six
months, while you were still inspectress?
A. Well, yes, and no. May I answer that, too?
Q. Would you explain the no part? The yes I
understand.
A. The no part is sometimes they would take them
and they wouldn't swap and sometimes they would take
them and they would swap. It all fell when we had-this
is when they got to where they really wouldn't want to
take the extra rooms. I keep saying extra rooms, take
their quota, not rooms. This is what I should say.
Q When did this start happening?
A. In March.
Q. Before that they had not refused to take extra
rooms?
A They refused some, but sometimes they would
go ahead and take them.
Q. Did they refuse to take these and I understand
what you mean by extra rooms, their quota every day
during 1970, March 1970?
A. They were not there to take every day during
that month , because the house may be low at this time
and you would only do your quota, where it was 8
rooms or 4 rooms, you would have to have 14 rooms
every day
K. The Company Had Knowledge of the Employees'
Union Activity
Mrs. Bostick's testimony with regard to her knowledge
of the union activity at the Motel was vague and
contradictory. She testified that none of the employees
mentioned anything to her about the Union "during the
late months of 1969 and the first few months of 1970."
Further, she stated that on the day of discharge, March 24,
she "didn ' t know anything about the union ." When she was
reminded that the union election had occurred on March 25
and the notices about it had been posted for 2 weeks
previously, she changed her testimony to state that she
"first got to know about the union when [her employer]
. . . asked me to put up a bulletin on the board" about a
week before the election . Bostick admitted to knowledge
about the Union, "At the very end, yes."
There appears little doubt and it is found on the record as
a whole that Bostick and the Motel had knowledge not later
than February 19, 1970, of the union activity among the
maids at the Motel. As stated above in section I, on
February 19, Mrs. Bostick told Mrs. Ellington and Mrs.
Amey that she (Mrs. Bostick) did not care whether the
Union came to the Motel or not. Respondent in effect
admitted that this conversation occurred because on cross-
examination of Mrs. Amey, Respondent placed extra
emphasis on this statement Further, Respondent used Mrs.
Amey's statement in its beef to show a lack of union
animus on the part of the Motel and to support the
testimony of Mrs. Bostick that "she had no objection to her
employees joining a union." Finally, it is particularly
significant that Bostick does not deny that she held the
conversation on February 19, though she does deny that
she told Mrs. Ellington and Mrs. Amey that "the union was
no good and the most it would get them was 5 cents as
compared to their having to pay $15.00 dues." Her stated
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason for not telling them was she didn ' t "know what the
union can get or how much you have to pay. I couldn't
possibly say this to them."
L. Mrs. Bostick Discharged the Five Maids for
Their Union Activities
Respondent has admitted to the discharge of the five
maids. The issue is whether they were discharged for cause.
It is concluded they were discharged for their union
activities.
It has already been found that not later than February 19,
the Motel had knowledge of the union activity. On the
credited testimony of Mrs. Bailey, Mrs. Calhoun, and Mrs.
Williams it has been found that Mrs. Bostick knew who
attended the three union meetings in March. Also on the
credited testimony of the maids, the record clearly shows
that the five maids were threatened with discharge for their
participation in or their continued participation in union
activity.
No reasons for their discharge were given to the five
maids on March 24. Respondent argues that their previous
history was just cause for their discharge. This is in error.
The testimony of Mrs. Bostick has been set out at some
length to show precisely that no cause for discharge can be
found. The testimony in its entirety is vague, contradictory,
general , and lacking in specificity. The events of March 24
as stated by Mrs. Bostick have neither clarity nor
continuity. Mrs. Bostick stated that there were disturbances
and congregations but states no particulars as to time or
kind. The five testify to no disturbances, no congregations,
and yield a coherent and cohesive story of the day's events.
Mrs. Bostick states that the five did not finish their work.
Mrs. Calhoun testified she finished her 14 rooms, 13 in her
section and I in another girl's.
The record shows that the five maids were employees for
approximately a year and a half, an unusually desirable
factor in an area where shortness of employment was
customary. They were reliable and did their work well.
Such shortcomings that they may have had were known to
management and long condoned.
Mrs. Bailey's slowness and tardiness had not been the
cause for even a warning.
The inseparability of Mrs. Ellington and Mrs. Amey
resulted in praise in the past rather than criticism not
because they were inseparable but because of the good
work both yielded.
Mrs. Williams' drinking and disorderly conduct were
alleged as factors of her discharge. The record contains no
support for this allegation. No significant evidence of
disorderly conduct by Mrs. Williams was shown. The
testimony shows that drinking, if Mrs. Williams drank,
played no part in the discharge. On Monday, March 23,
Mrs. Bostick was made aware by the office of Mrs.
Williams' misconduct the past Saturday. But Mrs. Bostick
permitted Mrs. Williams to work Monday saying nothing to
her about the Saturday report and permitted her to come
and work on Tuesday. Again, she said nothing to her. Mrs.
Bostick admits she gave Mrs. Williams no reason for her
discharge.
The same formula applies to Mrs. Calhoun. Only after
the Union appeared in the picture is there any attempt to
claim that she was disruptive and noncooperative. And as
an examination of Mrs . Bostick 's testimony will show, that
story is vague and contradictory.
It is clear that the five dischargees appear to have been
the most active union adherents among the maids . The fault
finding directed to them where no fault was found before
comes too close to the time of the union meetings to be
coincidental . It is found to be pretextual . Their discharge
following immediately after the third union meeting and
the lack of any cause for their discharges lead to the
conclusion that they were discharged because of their union
membership and union activity . It is so found.
IV. THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE OF RESPONDENT'S
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with Respondent 's opera-
tions described in section I, above , have a close , intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it is recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take such affirmative action as
appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that Respondent 's violations include
discriminatory discharges, and that it is considered that
there exists a danger of commission of other unfair labor
practices , it is recommended that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Sarah Bailey, Salley Calhoun, Willie Mae Wil-
liams, Sarah Amey, and Jessie Ellington on March 24, 1970,
it will be recommended that Respondent offer each of the
dischargees a full and immediate reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position of employment,
without prejudice to her seniority and other privileges and
that each be made whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered as a result of Respondent 's unlawful conduct.
Backpay for Sarah Bailey, Salley Calhoun, Willie Mae
Williams, Sarah Amey, and Jessie Ellington shall be
computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record herein , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. White House Motor Inn is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Service Employees International Union, Local #579,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
WHITE HOUSE MOTOR INN 1015
3. By engaging in the acts found and described above,
Respondent has unlawfully interrogated employees about
their union activities and has created among its employees
an impression that Respondent has had the employees'
union activities under surveillance, all in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with discharge and
otherwise interfering, restraining , and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, as found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. By discharging Sarah Bailey, Salley Calhoun, Willie
Mae Williams, Sarah Amey, and Jessie Ellington for their
union activities, as found above, Respondent has discrimi-
nated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
said and other employees thereby discouraging member-
ship in or activities on behalf of a labor organization,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid conduct constitutes unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER17
White House Motor Inn, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of their employees
in Service Employees International Union, Local #579,
AFL--CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging
or in any other manner discriminating against any
employee in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any
other term or condition of employment because of their
union or other protected concerted activity.
(b) Interrogating its employees about their union
activities, creating the impression that it has the employees'
union activities under surveillance, or threatening employ-
ees with discharge because of their activities on behalf of
Service Employees International Union, Local #579,
AFL--CIO, or any other labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively with representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activity.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Sarah Bailey, Salley Calhoun, Willie Mae
Williams, Sarah Amey, and Jessie Ellington, respectively,
immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due to Sarah
Bailey, Salley Calhoun, Willie Mae Williams, Sarah Amey,
and Jessie Ellington , under the terms of this Recommended
Order.
(d) Post at its Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by the Company's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.is
n In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
is In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL labor relations board."
i9 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 10, in wasting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, it has been decided that we, White House Motor
Inn, have violated the National Labor Relations Act, and
we have been ordered to post this Notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as employees,
certain rights, including the right to self-organization; to
form, join, or help unions; and to bargain collectively
through a representative of your own choosing.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances:
WE WILL NOT try to discourage you from becoming
or being a member of Service Employees International
Union, Local #579, AFL-CIO, or any other union by
discharging any employee, or in any other manner
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminating against our employees in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any other term or condition
of employment because of their union membership or
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten any of our employees with
discharge because of their union membership or
activity.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT create an impression among our
employees that their union activities are under surveil-
lance.
WE WILL offer Sarah Bailey , Salley Calhoun , Willie
Mae Williams , Sarah Amey, and Jessie Ellington,
respectively, her former job or , if that job no longer
exists , to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination against her.
WE WILL notify Sarah Bailey , Salley Calhoun , Willie
Mae Williams, Sarah Amey , and Jessie Ellington,
respectively , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any labor
organization.
Dated By
WHITE HOUSE MOTOR INN
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Room
701, Peachtree Building , 730 Peachtree Street , NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.